Hi, On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Tito <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday 12 July 2012 21:29:44 Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> Michael D. Setzer II wrote: >> >> >> 630c630 >> >> >> < "Copyright (C) 1998-2012 Erik Andersen, Rob >> >> >> Landley, Denys Vlasenko\n" >> >> >> --- >> >> >>> "Copyright (C) 1998-2011 Erik Andersen, Rob >> >> >> Landley, Denys Vlasenko\n" >> >> >> Took a little searching to find which file it was in. I'm assuming >> >> >> it should be 2012, but there might be a reason it is changed, or >> >> >> might just be it is to minor of an issue? >> >> > On Thursday 12 July 2012 03:16:32 Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> >> We should probably be careful here in that notice to make sure it's >> >> abundantly accurate. Specifically, it would be better if we were >> >> clearer about the years. For example, I am quite sure Erik hasn't >> >> made any contributions in 2012, and maybe not in 2011 either. >> >> >> >> It should probably be something like: >> >> "Copyright (C) 1998-<SOME_YEAR> Erik Andersen, >> >> (C) SOME_YEAR-SOME_YEAR Rob Landley, (C) SOME_YEAR-2012 Denys Vlasenko." >> >> Tito wrote at 01:36 (EDT): >> > maybe "Copyright (C) 1998-2012 by the Busybox project developers" and >> > then adding a full list to the source package and to the website could >> > be a solution. >> >> There is a problem with this, although I don't think it's the concern >> Alain raised is correct (more on that below). >> >> The main value in having a good copyright notice *in the binary* is, as >> I mentioned: when binary distributions occur, it's slightly easier in an >> enforcement action to trivially identify that the copyright holders' >> rights have been infringed. I've suggested an alternative below that >> would probably serve this purpose. > > Hi, > it is also trivial to change this line if you have enough criminal energy ;-) > > >> But, the main problem with the idea above "The BusyBox Project >> Developers" isn't a legal entity per se. BusyBox is part of the >> Conservancy, which does hold a few copyrights that have been assigned to >> it by a few developers, so we *could* list Conservancy in the list if we >> want. But, that aside, listing a copyright notice that is a name that >> is *not* a real legal corporate entity or individual is pointless. >> >> Therefore, my suggestion now is to change this: >> "Copyright (C) 1998-2012 Erik Andersen, Rob Landley, Denys Vlasenko\n" >> "and others. Licensed under GPLv2.\n" >> "See source distribution for full notice.\n" >> to this: >> "BusyBox is copyrighted by many authors between 1998-2012.\n" >> "Licensed under GPLv2. See source distribution for detailed\n" >> "copyright notices.\n" >> > > This is ok for me if the lawyers ack it. >
Although this seems to be the best solution, IMHO it was nice to recognize here the work done by the main developers. >> That may be the best option, really. What do people think? >> >> The trade-off here is really down to bytes that end up in the binary. >> Ideally, we'd list all the copyright notices that Michael Setzer found >> with his sed script, but that's 400 lines of copyright notices and >> that's surely too much for the binary. > > I would add this cleaned up list to source tough. > Do you mean updating the AUTHORS file? The sed script may not be exhaustive, there is also git log. But that thing would be a never ending redundancy. >> Ultimately, though, I think it's up to the community to decide what key >> copyright holders we want to list in the binary officially. >> >> Alain Mouette wrote: >> >>> This is not good. In case of a court dispute, all copyright owners >> >>> have to be present. So if you want the copyright do be good for >> >>> something, it has to be nominal! >> >> Alain, I'm not sure I understand your point. Any given copyright holder >> can enforce the license -- Denys, Erik, and Conservancy together as >> copyright holders do this often without involvement of other copyright >> holders. Having more copyright holders involved in GPL enforcement is >> good, and if other copyright holders want to be involved, they should of >> course contact me and I can get you all setup (the advantage to this is >> you also get direct input into the process of how Conservancy does >> enforcement). >> >> However, it's not required that all copyright holders be present to act. >> As a practical matter, you need enough copyright holders present such >> that your copyrights can't be trivially written out by a GPL violator, >> but with Conservancy, Erik, and Denys, we meet that bar easily already >> on BusyBox. >> >> Meanwhile, it's also not required that the notices appear perfectly in >> the copyright material, either. Notices are helpful for the reasons I >> explained above, but they aren't mandatory. >> >> As usual, IANAL, TINLA, etc. >> > _______________________________________________ > busybox mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox Regards, -- Pere _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
